WW27 Game Thread: Once there were 12

[novice]

There were no logical flaws that I could see. What was pointed out to me was that there is a possibility that our perception on Zak's original post might have changed along the way due to the questioning that followed.

There was more to it than that. Here are the posts in question.

If Zak's post was later in the game and not the first player post in the thread, then I would agree with MJW's original case. Sounded more like an off-hand comment to break the ice in this case. But now I'm confused after Zak's comments on it. First it sounded like it was some kind of a trap, because Zak said that he had thought in advance what reactions the scum would have on it. That's what a trap is all about, right? Catch the scum based on how a scum would react to a comment. And now he is saying that it was not a trap, but a genuine suggestion. But it wasn't really a genuine suggestion because he knew that the rules forbid it, he pointed it out himself. Something that has no way of working in this game and only serves as a distraction for the village is not genuine.

Serdoa, you were over-reacting.

Classical Hero does not seem a good player, or at least follows a different meta. I've got no read on him and I doubt anyone else does either. If he dies today it's a pure policy lynch. Don't see the need for it personally.

Mattimeo posted only non-content, or maybe I'm just not interested in the topic of all his posts :P

I still don't understand why Gaz made it look like Qg was not joking and voted for Qg, but then later admitted that he knew Qg was joking. Why try to get him lynched under false pretenses?

Zakalwe seems to be our best bet today.

And now he is saying that it was not a trap, but a genuine suggestion. But it wasn't really a genuine suggestion because he knew that the rules forbid it, he pointed it out himself.

This is bad. It was speculated, by MJW I think, that Zak's suggestion would have been a trap if it had been a legal suggestion. Zak clarified that it would have been a sincere suggestion. Would have been. Are you trying to conjure contradictions out of thin air, Jowy?

And now he is saying that it was not a trap, but a genuine suggestion. But it wasn't really a genuine suggestion because he knew that the rules forbid it, he pointed it out himself.

This is bad. It was speculated, by MJW I think, that Zak's suggestion would have been a trap if it had been a legal suggestion. Zak clarified that it would have been a sincere suggestion. Would have been. Are you trying to conjure contradictions out of thin air, Jowy?

No, I read Zak's earlier post the same way (I assume) MJW did. We both came to the same conclusion which was Zak saying it was a trap, which he later then denied. This post:

Well, Zak has not defended himself

I thought I did. My defense can be summarized as follows:
- It was not an asinine suggestion.
- Besides, it was just a suggestion.

Just to share some more about my thought process, I did originally have some ideas about how the wolves might react to my suggestion, although those aren't really applicable now since the move isn't actually allowed. But as a wolf, I would not really be happy with a no lynch on the first day, as I'm always eager to at least get one mislynch out of the way. So I figured the wolves would support the idea so long as that was where the tide seemed to be turning, but would look for opportunities to swing a policy lynch instead towards the end of the day.

Novice - I had similar thoughts about Serdoa. I don't think he's particularly likely to lurk as scum, but he's hard enough to catch as is, so as a policy lynch it makes sense.

Okay, we could say it was a trap that could never catch anyone because it's not applicable in this game. Same as the genuine theory. Whichever it was, a trap or a theory, in both cases bringing it up in this game will not benefit the village at all. The impression I got from Zak's later posts was that it was more than just an ice-breaker post.

No, I read Zak's earlier post the same way (I assume) MJW did. We both came to the same conclusion which was Zak saying it was a trap, which he later then denied. This post:

Just to share some more about my thought process, I did originally have some ideas about how the wolves might react to my suggestion, although those aren't really applicable now since the move isn't actually allowed. But as a wolf, I would not really be happy with a no lynch on the first day, as I'm always eager to at least get one mislynch out of the way. So I figured the wolves would support the idea so long as that was where the tide seemed to be turning, but would look for opportunities to swing a policy lynch instead towards the end of the day.

Okay, so you read that as "trap". Zak clarified here that it's not:

By "Lady Elizabeth trap" you probably mean deliberately doing something anti-town to see who will follow. If so, that's not what I was up to. Like I said, it was a genuine suggestion (or would have been). But I also had some thoughts about how scum might react to it. The last thing you want as scum is a slow, drawn-out game. And that's what you get with an initial no lynch.

You misunderstanding something and Zak clarifying it does not mean Zak contradicted himself.

The impression I got from Zak's later posts was that [the initial post] was more than just an ice-breaker post.

I would say the initial post was an ice-breaker, and the later posts were prompted by our questioning. Much like the Muriel meta discussion on day one in the last game.

Actually, they're not so much logical flaws as a blatant misrepresentation of events. This was your case on Zak:
"If Zak's post was later in the game and not the first player post in the thread, then I would agree with MJW's original case. Sounded more like an off-hand comment to break the ice in this case."
- Okay so Zak's post was an icebreaker, that's not a scum tell on Zak then I suppose?

"But now I'm confused after Zak's comments on it. First it sounded like it was some kind of a trap, because Zak said that he had thought in advance what reactions the scum would have on it. That's what a trap is all about, right? Catch the scum based on how a scum would react to a comment. And now he is saying that it was not a trap, but a genuine suggestion."
- You're postulating what you think a trap is, and when Zak explains that he wasn't (in the parallel universe game where no lynch is allowed) trapping in the sense of doing something antitown and seeing who jumped on (he was actually doing something he thought of as protown and seeing who subtly resisted), you take that as a sign that Zak has contradicted himself. He hasn't. Where's the scumtell?

"And now he is saying that it was not a trap, but a genuine suggestion. But it wasn't really a genuine suggestion because he knew that the rules forbid it, he pointed it out himself."
- You're mixing senses here. Zak said that if a no lynch had been allowed, his suggestion would have been genuine. He's not saying that it was a genuine suggestion for this game despite the rules forbidding it.

"Something that has no way of working in this game and only serves as a distraction for the village is not genuine."
- So now it's no longer an icebreaker?

Really you could have summed up your case on Zak with the sentence "I'm confused".

You are lying about Gazglum, I had pointed out what I found scummy about him and voted for him earlier in the day. He did not "conveniently become" anything after he had went to sleep, he was already a target long before that. Should I repeat myself and make the same case again that I already made?

OK, sorry if I was wrong about that. But yes, you should absolutely repeat your case on Gazglum, and you should update us with what you think about it now that Gazglum has defended.

Yes, you tried twice to get a Serdoa policy lynch going, but had to give up when he started posting. The set-up would obviously be for Day 2. Have you lost both your memory and your sense? :P

Well, now you're lying. I did not twice try to get a Serdoa policy lynch going. Please show me where I tried that. What I did was that made this one post, at a time when Serdoa had just one post of no substance:

If we're policy lynching maybe we should lynch Serdoa. He seems to be too busy for this game, and I usually only home in on his scum persona through a process of elimination, which we may not have time for in this game.

MJW for now.

Note how I just suggest that IF we're policy lynching, Serdoa is a good target. I even vote for another candidate. And this is even a crosspost with Jkaen suggesting the same thing (and voting for him):

To try and move things along a bit more, I see CH and Matt are being pressured slightly for low posts, but I have seen no real comment towards Serdoa, is this because the wolves want us to policy lynch the other 2 but not Serdoa?

In order to try and discuss something else today other than zak's opening post Serdoa.

As for the setup thing, what is the supposed setup, exactly? My plan was to get Serdoa lynched on day one so that I could night-kill Serdoa on night one so that I would appear to have been framed for his death on day 2? I'm sorry, you'll have to spell it out.

So that's two badly constructed cases, one on Zak and one on me. I think that warrants a vote. Jowy.

Fake edit: Also a good observation by The Observer Effect on how Jowy focuses on fewer players in this game.

[Jowy]

Clarifying the Novice - Serdoa connection, three possibilities:
1) Wolf-Novice and his scumbuddies wanted to take out a strong town player with a policy lynch so they don't have to use a night kill on him. They tried, didn't gain momentum, so they dropped it and killed him in the night.
2) Scum noticed that Novice was trying to get Serdoa policy lynched and killed Serdoa to set-up a miss-lynch on Villager-Novice. In this case I would have expected them to bring up that fact, but they didn't, so I don't find this option likely.
3) It was just a coincidence.

I also agree with zakalwe that the questions novice has been asking have not all been answered or have obvious answers. This whole post feels disingenuous. Also, leaving your vote on zak at the end of day one, if you were around to change it, seems bad. You say you aren't sure if you should vote for the lesser of two evils, instead of someone you yourself suspect. Certainly throughout the day vote your suspicions, I'm not saying you should blindly follow others. But at the end of the day, if you are voting somewhere it is impossible to matter, it is suspect to me. Leaving your vote on as the sole vote on someone going into a lynch makes it easier to hide if you are scum, and you can just say "it is who I suspect".

I answered all of novice's questions until the last one when I got tired of them. I did answer it already though, since people demanded the explanation. I thought it was very obvious, here it is again: If I have a case with a ton of scum tells, and another case that is based on much less and I've already shared it once and it didn't get any momentum and I don't have anything new to add to it, obviously I'm going with the better case. As for my posts feeling disingenuous to you, I can't defend against that. Maybe it is just how I write, and it will take a few miss-lynches on me for people to stop getting that vibe from my posts. I think that my vote did matter, it does give people the option to switch to the one I'm voting for. In both WW games I've played, there was a shift that saved the earlier leader on Day 1. Why could it not happen here? Also in my last game, almost every single vote was between two villagers. Those are some cons I can think of for only voting for the top two, but like I said, I don't know what play is optimal in these situations. I happened to play it this way this time. If there is a clear meta game that says that it's always better to vote for the top two, then I understand why you would take my vote as a scum tell, but if there is a meta like that, I'm not aware of it, nor would I follow it without understanding the benefits of it.

Jowy is not only displaying poor logic, he is also being uncooperative, in a somewhat scummy way. I thought he was being evasive when Gazglum questioned him, and he also ignored the questions from Novice. Furthermore, the case he made against Novice looks crafted to me, like it was prepared in advance.

It's really hard to defend against something like this with no specifics. What bad logic? When was I uncooperative? Why was it scummy? Why did you think I was being evasive? Why does the case look crafted?

How come when someone posts a case with a lot of tells, other players find parts of it that they don't agree with and then proceed to discredit all of it? And not just that, but then they try to get the guy who made that case get lynched. I just don't get it, it makes no fucking sense to me. Same as lynching CH made no sense to me. I'm here trying to catch scum, and it feels like a ton of people are trying to punish villagers who make bad plays, or punish villagers who have a different point of view, or punish villagers who don't share the same meta, or punish villagers who make mistakes. People keep saying that the wolves have gotten smarter and the villagers have a hard time winning, but it's really no wonder when the village focuses so much on punishing people when in reality the only thing the village should be doing is catching wolves.

Fake-edit: Crosspost with novice and a bunch of other people.

[Azarius]

Gazglum raises a good point on Jowy's prolific posting from earlier games. Last game at times it felt as is half of what I read was from Muriel, he seemed to comment on almost everything. Definitely more subdued posting this game from him. I don't necessarily think by itself this is damning, but it does add to my general suspicion of him.

That being said, I have a hard time moving my vote from Mattimeo given his last two posts. He took time out to comment, but doesn't really say anything of substance. He makes a snarky comment at MJW, then pokes at his mod slip theory. Then he acknowledges the comment I made on him saying he wasn't scum hunting day one and was just parking his vote, but instead of actually addressing the point he just muses on why I said something instead of Azza. implying that Azza got me to field it instead of doing so himself. He then makes another post saying that he doesn't have time to comment now, but he may tomorrow. For someone short of time, he sure accomplished almost nothing with what time he does have. On days when I was short of time for this last game, I tried to use what time I did have to address important questions and get across my views on things as best I could. All he seems to be doing here is checking in like it's an obligation to appear active.

[zakalwe]

Q, I think the onus should be on you to explain why Jkaen deserves such a strong village lean. Personally I think that is premature, even if I haven't got any specific scumtells on him.

MJW, why were you so dismissive of my case against Azarius yesterday? Looking back, my argument should be right up your alley, as you love to pick on minor anomalies. If he did deliberately choose to let people think he was new, don't you think that would be significant?

For Jowy - this was evasive:

I think you answered your own question by quoting me I've stated that I found Matt's and CH's cases very similar, with of course the difference being that one is a veteran and the other is a newbie. Should a player always vote for lesser of the two evils rather than someone they suspect themselves? I don't know if there is a right or a wrong answer to that question.

Not answering these questions was/is uncooperative:

Well Gazglum has posted a lot since then. What is your opinion on him now? Why haven't you followed up your suspicions while you had the chance to get feedback?

Your case against me yesterday displayed bad logic, not differentiating between the hypothetical game in which I made an actual no lynch suggestion and this game, where I didn't.

The post against Novice looks crafted because it doesn't address the most recent questions addressed to you, and is written in a style that breaks the flow. Hence, it looks like something you may have prepared in a text editor, but held back on posting. I realize this last point is kind of silly but that's the feeling I got from your post.

[Gazglum]

VOTE COUNT

Jowy (3) - Gazglum, Zakalwe, Novice
Azza (1) - Mattimeo
Mattimeo (1) - Azarius
MJW (1) - Q
Novice (1) - Jowy
Qgqqq (1) - Jkaen
Zakalwe (1) - MJW

Not voting: Azza

[Gazglum]

I would also be keen to hear Mattimeo's thoughts on Jowy at the moment.

I have been terrible at this whole 'sleeping' thing lately, so I should probably make an actual attempt at that now. Will have a look at Jowy this evening. Though Friday night means there's a toss-up whether I'll be back before you turn in

I know you're quite nocturnal Mattimeo, but this is a convenient time to be turning in (its breakfast time man!). By the time you get back from a party in 18 hours, the Jowy case might be a lot clearer. If I was feeling paranoid, I might say that the scum team want to wait until near deadline to decide whether or not to bus their scumbuddy Jowy. Who incidentally, when the roles were reversed, didn't have much to say about you either.

I haven't forgotten you my slippery Melbourne friend. Oh no I have not.

[MJW (ya that one)]

Q, I think the onus should be on you to explain why Jkaen deserves such a strong village lean. Personally I think that is premature, even if I haven't got any specific scumtells on him.

MJW, why were you so dismissive of my case against Azarius yesterday? Looking back, my argument should be right up your alley, as you love to pick on minor anomalies. If he did deliberately choose to let people think he was new, don't you think that would be significant?

Just because. There were people making far fewer content then him. And the anomalies he did weren't that wolfish. Why wolf wolf Az not want to correct people that he is not new? Why would a villager Az not want to correct, ether? The most likely expiation is that he didn't read the fact that people were mistaking him.

[MJW (ya that one)]

In what possible way would it make any sense for a mod to deliberately give away a scan result like that? You are stretching your horrific logic even further than usual. Why?
On the plus side, I suppose it's a good tell - if I ever understand a point you're trying to make, or worse yet, agree with one, then I'll know something's gone drastically wrong and you're probably scum...

--Mattimeo

It would not be on purpose. It's just the mod fumbling like Brick in the Mafia game were brick said "you found nothing to steal" to azza instead of "no result" for some strange reason.

[MJW (ya that one)]

FYI, Jkaen is still voting for me Gaz.

[Jowy]

Novice, I think my crosspost answers some of those questions. I'll answer the rest now.

Zak's case simplified in a timeline for you:
1. Zak posts a shitty joke theory that is forbidden in the rules thus will not help us ever in this game even if it was good (which it wasn't).
2. We find out that it isn't just a joke, but Zak has been putting a lot of thought into it and it could have even been pre-planned.
3. We find out contradictions by Zak about it.
4. We find out the answers to the questioning have been about a fictional alternate universe in which the theory was not forbidden in the rules.

= Zak is scummy. Could he still be a villager who just made a mistake in making a joke and then a ton more mistakes in arguing about it rather than just saying that it was a joke theory? Yes, absolutely. But to me a scum tell doesn't mean it's a 100% evidence that someone is a scum. To me, a scum tell means that person now has a higher chance to roll a wolf once lynched, and I believe this to be the case for Zak.

You and Zak are both voting for a bad reason, again. I made cases against both of you, you disagree with them (duh) so you revenge vote and try to get me lynched. When the day ends and I'm a dead villager, you'll probably say something stupid like "He did it to himself by posting a bunch of scum tells which some of them we didn't agree with!" If you two are villagers and want to win this thing, how about you start catching some scum, instead of policy lynching or revenge lynching a bunch of villagers? Only scum don't catch scum.

For Jowy - this was evasive:

I think you answered your own question by quoting me I've stated that I found Matt's and CH's cases very similar, with of course the difference being that one is a veteran and the other is a newbie. Should a player always vote for lesser of the two evils rather than someone they suspect themselves? I don't know if there is a right or a wrong answer to that question.

Not answering these questions was/is uncooperative:

Well Gazglum has posted a lot since then. What is your opinion on him now? Why haven't you followed up your suspicions while you had the chance to get feedback?

Your case against me yesterday displayed bad logic, not differentiating between the hypothetical game in which I made an actual no lynch suggestion and this game, where I didn't.

The post against Novice looks crafted because it doesn't address the most recent questions addressed to you, and is written in a style that breaks the flow. Hence, it looks like something you may have prepared in a text editor, but held back on posting. I realize this last point is kind of silly but that's the feeling I got from your post.

How was that evasive? I said he had already answered his own question. Then I even repeated that part instead of letting him find it for himself from my post he quoted. Someone had a dumb question that they would have known the answer to if they paid any attention to a post that they themselves quoted by me, but I still helped him out and went the extra mile to explain it to him. That's not evasive, it's the opposite of evasive. As for the questions, I've already answered this question about the questions, so once again I'm being anti-evasive by repeating myself and spelling it out for someone who should have already gotten the answer from my earlier posts: I had a much better case than the one in Gaz, so I went with that. There was nothing new I could add to the Gaz case. As for the bad logic, I don't agree. Read the earlier part of this post for my explanation. The fact that you even have this "hypothetical game" you keep referencing is a scum tell in itself. We're supposed to catch wolves in this game, anything you do or don't in your "hypothetical game" doesn't matter and only serves to distract us. And I can't defend myself against accusations like "style that breaks the flow" or "post that has been held back". I can only say that you are wrong about them.